Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#91

Post by godelski »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #66
godelski wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea of a (near) 50/50 split is that if there were absolutely no biases or differences then you would see approximately this distribution. But we don't. We do know there are social biases, and thus these are being scrutinized much more. Certainly there can biological biases, but is is absurd to believe that is the only factor involved. My guess is that there is a whole complicated mess of problems and not…

Why does it matter if the differences are biological, cultural, or both? If women have the option to go into STEM without risking social exclusion(which is arguably the case in most developed countries) yet they choose to do something else, shouldn't that be their choice? Wouldn't these unequal trends naturally result in an environment with equal opportunities among people with different overall desires?

I think you answer your own question

> Why does it matter if the differences are biological, cultural, or both?

> If women have the option to go into STEM without risking SOCIAL (ie: culture) exclusion yet they choose to do something else, shouldn't that be their choice?

I'd say it matters if it is social exclusion. If a bias is caused by biology, then that's fine. But clearly there shouldn't be a cultural bias, because that prevents people from making that choice. I see the problem solved when there are no cultural or political barriers.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#92

Post by supreme_sublime »

annabellish wrote: post #89
supreme_sublime wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, since as far as I know there's no real empirical evidence for this. I'll give my own anecdote as a man. I wasn't encouraged at all, by anyone I knew, to get a career in programming. My parents tried to block certain websites I was frequenting, my friends showed no interest at all in what I was doing. I was lucky to find online communities who did help me and encourage me. But I found those on my own through my…

I think one of the problems this discussion has is people see "girls, on average, are discouraged more often than boys" and actually read "all girls have it worse than all boys and no boys had anything but a spiffing time". Now, I'm not saying you're doing this, and I'm definitely not saying your experiences aren't valuable, but I am saying that your experiences are fully compatible with girls recieving more discoura…

I don't really think that people should need encouragement to do things they want to do. Some might, but if someone discouraging you slightly by saying "you wouldn't be interested in that" succeeds in discouraging you, I'd argue you didn't really want to do it.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not arguing that the active discouragement is a good thing. I think parents especially, should enable their children's constructive interests. If I had a son who liked baseball (a sport I hate) more than basketball (a sport I love), I might try to get him to do both, but ultimately would defer to him.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#93

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

godelski wrote: post #91
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter if the differences are biological, cultural, or both? If women have the option to go into STEM without risking social exclusion(which is arguably the case in most developed countries) yet they choose to do something else, shouldn't that be their choice? Wouldn't these unequal trends naturally result in an environment with equal opportunities among people with different overall desires?

I think you answer your own question > Why does it matter if the differences are biological, cultural, or both? > If women have the option to go into STEM without risking SOCIAL (ie: culture) exclusion yet they choose to do something else, shouldn't that be their choice? I'd say it matters if it is social exclusion. If a bias is caused by biology, then that's fine. But clearly there shouldn't be a cultural bias, beca…

There is a big difference between social exclusion and cultural forces. In the 50's, it was nearly impossible for a woman to gain any power. Those who went against the gender norms of the time were ostracized and shunned. Nowadays, while there are cultural norms that guide how the majority of certain groups think, people who go against the norm are tolerated.

That is okay with me. I think it's fine that cultural norms guide women into certain fields and men into another, as long as everyone has the equal opportunity to choose to go against the cultural grain. Which they do.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#94

Post by UncleMeat »

rdtsc wrote: post #51

> Research on actual hiring shows female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, but if they do apply, they are more likely to be hired, sometimes by a 2:1 ratio. I think the society and culture needs to work a bit harder to promote the idea of a girl as a professor, scientist, hacker, math wiz etc. Not just lip service but change the stories, the cartoons, movies, games etc. Fo…

> But what if sitting in a cubicle inverting binary trees all day, mostly in isolation, doesn't appeal to others, and maybe those other are more likely to be women.

It is hard to buy this as the cause when we've seen the percentage of women grow and shrink dramatically over time. Is this work lifestyle so different from software engineering in the 80s when representation in cs programs was far better?

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#95

Post by danieltillett »

troupe wrote: post #74
gaius wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blind recruiting had some unintended consequences http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria...

Doesn't that study basically suggests that there is institutional sexism against males?

Yes. But don’t say that unless you want to end up on the pointy end of some pressure group's stick.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#96

Post by linkmotif »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #54
linkmotif wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sentence 1: > None of that stuff is because of bias though. Sentence 2: > That is just the result of being in a field dominated by the other gender.

He's speaking about the boundary conditions, you're just parrotting something you have clearly misunderstood.

Boundary conditions, exactly.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#97

Post by rdtsc »

UncleMeat wrote: post #94
rdtsc wrote: post #51

> Research on actual hiring shows female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, but if they do apply, they are more likely to be hired, sometimes by a 2:1 ratio. I think the society and culture needs to work a bit harder to promote the idea of a girl as a professor, scientist, hacker, math wiz etc. Not just lip service but change the stories, the cartoons, movies, games etc. Fo…

> But what if sitting in a cubicle inverting binary trees all day, mostly in isolation, doesn't appeal to others, and maybe those other are more likely to be women. It is hard to buy this as the cause when we've seen the percentage of women grow and shrink dramatically over time. Is this work lifestyle so different from software engineering in the 80s when representation in cs programs was far better?

> Is this work lifestyle so different from software engineering in the 80s when representation in cs programs was far better?

Good point. I don't have an answer there. I can think of a few things though:

* Maybe other professions changed and become more appealing so more women found it easier to become doctors or say lawyers. Maybe those women went into STEM before and now with more access to scholarships they could do something else?

* Culture changed. There was a great push in the 50s and 60s for STEM to overcome the Soviets, who were seen as winning the space race. So there were more programs to get children interested in science, and somehow it resulted in girls of that era being more attracted to it. By the 80s they grew up to get jobs so would be contributing to the statistics.

* The new tech companies that grew rapidly had more of a toxic male "brogrammer" culture unwelcome to women, and maybe paradoxically a more traditional places like NASA or IBM where people wore formal attire and pocket protectors also was a place were there was less harassment and more professionalism. As those new "startups" become large tech giants they had failed to pay attention to harassment and behavior of its "ninja rockstar programmers"

* Gaming culture. Maybe computer games started to become more popular. Those were geared more towards boys, as a result more boys got to spend time on computers, at first playing games, then trying to hack games and write their own.

But I imagine women were always underrepresented in STEM and computing and there is no one single factor. Was 80s a "golden age" of STEM for women? What was the percentage difference. How did it compare to representation in CS only vs STEM. I couldn't find good answers, maybe you'd have more luck.

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#98

Post by crowleysimon »

cup-of-tea wrote: post #83
katrinamo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same goes for the wage gap. We know there is no gap. I'm curious how you've come to this conclusion considering the preponderance of studies that say otherwise. This article by the Washington Post examines a few claims regarding the wage gap if you are interested: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/women-...

> The median salary for women working full-time is about 80 percent of men’s. I don't need to read any further because I've read it all before. Women tend do different jobs to men. Easier, safer, less responsibility and less stress. That's not a wage gap, it's just a different choice of career. Which makes the next statement downright offensive: > That gap, put in other terms, means women are working for free 10 week…

I suggest you go back and read further on since "Women choose lower-paying jobs" is the very first claim that they refute

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#99

Post by gaius »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #32
ikeyany wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure she's blaming men as much as she's confirming the existence of the culture around tech that non-traditional students (women or blacks/Latinos) feel very alienated from. That doesn't mean she thinks anyone is "to blame".

I don't think we should downvote here. As much as none of us nerds like nerd-punching, we should admit that nerd culture is a distinct thing unto itself, which co-clusters with other demographic factors (especially being middle-class with time for hobbies when you're young), and frankly isn't very welcoming in the adult stages of acculturation. If we expect people to "enter into" nerd culture to join "nerdy" professi…

If we expect people to "enter into" nerd culture to join "nerdy" professions

You don’t think other professions have cultures?

Good luck with facial piercings and purple hair in Corporate Law, but in software no one would bat an eyelid. The culture you are complaining about is MORE tolerant than nearly all other professions!

Re: Experiments reveal faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track (2014)

#100

Post by cup-of-tea »

crowleysimon wrote: post #98
cup-of-tea wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The median salary for women working full-time is about 80 percent of men’s. I don't need to read any further because I've read it all before. Women tend do different jobs to men. Easier, safer, less responsibility and less stress. That's not a wage gap, it's just a different choice of career. Which makes the next statement downright offensive: > That gap, put in other terms, means women are working for free 10 week…

I suggest you go back and read further on since "Women choose lower-paying jobs" is the very first claim that they refute

But that doesn't take into account responsibility or actual job done at all. Organisations only have a limited number of job titles and at higher levels people are not as expendable. They do their own job.

The only thing that does seem to explain a gap---but a much smaller gap---is that men are more likely to negotiate their salaries.

Post reply on HN